.
Click here for the separate opinions of the Justices: |
Concurring Justices:
Panganiban, C.J.,
Ynares-Santiago,
Sandoval-Gutierrez,
Austria-Martinez,
Carpio-Morales,
Callejo, Sr., and
Azcuna,
JJ. |
Dissenting Justices:
Puno,
Quisumbing,
Corona,
Tinga,
Chico-Nazario,
Garcia,
and Velasco, Jr., JJ. |
EN BANC
RAUL L. LAMBINO and ERICO
B.
AUMENTADO,
TOGETHER WITH
6,327,952 REGISTERED
VOTERS,
Petitioners, |
G.R. No. 174153
October 25, 2006
- versus -
THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS,
Respondent.
x---------------------------------------------------------------x
|
ALTERNATIVE LAW GROUPS, INC.,
Intervenor.
x---------------------------------------------------------------x
|
ONEVOICE INC., CHRISTIAN S.
MONSOD, RENE
B. AZURIN, MANUEL L. QUEZON III, BENJAMIN
T. TOLOSA, JR., SUSAN V. OPLE and CARLOS P.
MEDINA, JR.
Intervenors.
x---------------------------------------------------------------x
|
ATTY. PETE QUIRINO QUADRA,
Intervenor.
x-------------------------------------------x
|
BAYAN represented by its Chairperson
Dr. Carolina
Pagaduan-Araullo, BAYAN MUNA
represented by its Chairperson,
Dr. Reynaldo
Lesaca, KILUSANG MAYO UNO represented
by its Secretary General Joel Maglunsod, HEAD
represented by its
Secretary General Dr. Gene
Alzona Nisperos, ECUMENICAL BISHOPS
FORUM represented by Fr. Dionito Cabillas,
MIGRANTE represented
by its Chairperson
Concepcion Bragas-Regalado, GABRIELA
represented by its Secretary General
Emerenciana de Jesus,
GABRIELA WOMEN’S
PARTY represented by Sec. Gen. Cristina
Palabay,
ANAKBAYAN represented by Chairperson
Eleanor de
Guzman, LEAGUE OF FILIPINO
STUDENTS represented by Chair
Vencer
Crisostomo Palabay, JOJO PINEDA of the
League of
Concerned Professionals and
Businessmen, DR. DARBY SANTIAGO
of the Solidarity of Health Against Charter
Change, DR. REGINALD
PAMUGAS of
Health Action for Human Rights,
Intervenors.
x--------------------------------------------------------------x
|
LORETTA ANN P. ROSALES,
MARIO JOYO AGUJA, and ANA THERESA
HONTIVEROS-BARAQUEL,
Intervenors.
x---------------------------------------------------------------x
|
ARTURO M. DE CASTRO,
Intervenor.
x---------------------------------------------------------------x
|
TRADE UNION CONGRESS OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
Intervenors.
x---------------------------------------------------------------x
|
LUWALHATI RICASA ANTONINO,
Intervenors.
x---------------------------------------------------------------x
|
PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION
ASSOCIATION (PHILCONSA), CONRADO
F. ESTRELLA, TOMAS C. TOLEDO,
MARIANO M. TAJON, FROILAN M.
BACUNGAN, JOAQUIN T. VENUS, JR.,
FORTUNATO P. AGUAS, and AMADO
GAT
INCIONG,
Intervenors.
x---------------------------------------------------------------x
|
RONALD L. ADAMAT, ROLANDO
MANUEL RIVERA, and RUELO BAYA,
Intervenors.
x---------------------------------------------------------------x
|
PHILIPPINE TRANSPORT AND GENERAL
WORKERS ORGANIZATION (PTGWO)
and MR. VICTORINO F. BALAIS,
Intervenors.
x---------------------------------------------------------------x
|
SENATE OF THE PHILIPPINES, represented
by its President, MANUEL VILLAR, JR.,
Intervenors.
x---------------------------------------------------------------x
|
SULONG BAYAN MOVEMENT
FOUNDATION, INC.,
Intervenors.
x---------------------------------------------------------------x
|
JOSE ANSELMO I. CADIZ, BYRON D.
BOCAR, MA. TANYA KARINA A. LAT,
ANTONIO L. SALVADOR, and
RANDALL TABAYOYONG,
Intervenors.
x---------------------------------------------------------------x
|
INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES,
CEBU CITY AND CEBU PROVINCE
CHAPTERS,
Intervenors.
x---------------------------------------------------------------x
|
SENATE MINORITY LEADER AQUILINO
Q. PIMENTEL, JR. and
SENATORS
SERGIO R. OSMEŇA III,
JAMBY
MADRIGAL, JINGGOY
ESTRADA,
ALFREDO S. LIM and
PANFILO LACSON,
Intervenors.
x---------------------------------------------------------------x
|
JOSEPH EJERCITO ESTRADA
and
PWERSA
NG MASANG
PILIPINO,
Intervenors.
x---------------------------------------------------------------x
|
MAR-LEN ABIGAIL
BINAY,
SOFRONIO
UNTALAN, JR.,
and
RENE
A.V. SAGUISAG,
Petitioners,
x---------------------------------------------------------------x
|
G.R. No. 174299
October 25, 2006
-versus- chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
COMMISSION ON
ELECTIONS,
represented by Chairman BENJAMIN
S. ABALOS, SR., and Commissioners
RESURRECCION Z.
BORRA,
FLORENTINO A. TUASON,
ROMEO A.
BRAWNER,
RENE V.
SARMIENTO,
NICODEMO T. FERRER,
and
John
Doe and Peter
Doe,
Respondents.
x---------------------------------------------------------------x
|
DISSENTING OPINION
chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
CORONA, J.:
chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
The life of the law is not logic but experience.[1] Our collective
experience as a nation breathes life to our system of laws, especially
to the
ConstitutionThese cases promise to significantly contribute to our collective
experience as a nation. Fealty to the primary constitutional principle
that the Philippines is not merely a republican State but a democratic
one as well behooves this Court to affirm the right of the people to
participate directly in the process of introducing changes to their
fundamental law. These petitions present such an opportunity. Thus,
this is an opportune time for this Court to uphold the sovereign rights
of the people.
I agree with the opinion of Mr. Justice Reynato Puno who has
sufficiently explained the rationale for upholding the people’s
initiative. However, I wish to share my own thoughts on certain matters
I deem material and significant.
Santiago Does Not Apply to This Case
But Only to the 1997 Delfin Petition
The COMELEC denied the petition for initiative filed by petitioners
purportedly on the basis of this Court’s ruling in Santiago v.
COMELEC[2] that: (1)
R A 6735
was inadequate to cover the system of initiative regarding amendments
to the Constitution and (2) the COMELEC was permanently enjoined
from entertaining or taking cognizance of any petition for initiative
regarding amendments to the
Constitution
until a sufficient law was validly enacted to provide for the implementation of the initiative provision.
However, Santiago should not apply to this case but only to the
petition of Delfin in 1997. It would be unreasonable to make it apply
to all petitions which were yet unforeseen in 1997. The fact is that
Santiago was focused on the Delfin petition alone.
chan robles virtual law library
Those who oppose the exercise of the people’s right to initiate changes
to the Constitution via initiative claim that Santiago barred any and
all future petitions for initiative by virtue of the doctrines of stare
decisis and res judicata. The argument is flawed.
The ponencia of Mr. Justice Puno has amply discussed the arguments
relating to stare decisis. Hence, I will address the argument
from the viewpoint of res judicata. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
Res judicata is the rule that a final judgment rendered by a court of
competent jurisdiction on the merits is conclusive as to the rights of
the parties and their privies and, as to them, constitutes an absolute
bar to a subsequent action involving the same claim, demand or cause of
action.[3] It has the following requisites: (1) the former judgment or
order must be final; (2) it must have been rendered by a court having
jurisdiction of the subject matter and of the parties; (3) it must be a
judgment or order on the merits and (4) there must be identity of
parties, of subject matter, and of cause of action between the first
and second actions.[4]
chan robles virtual law library
There is no identity of parties in Santiago and the instant case. While
the COMELEC was also the respondent in Santiago, the petitioners in
that case and those in this case are different. More significantly,
there is no identity of causes of action in the two cases. Santiago
involved amendments to Sections 4 and 7 of Article VI, Section 4 of
Article VII and Section 8 of Article X of the
Constitution
while the present petition seeks to amend Sections 1to 7 of Article VI and Sections 1 to 4 of the
1987 ConstitutionClearly, therefore, the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion
when it ruled that the present petition for initiative was barred by
Santiago and, on that ground, dismissed the petition.
The present petition and that in Santiago are materially different from
each other. They are not based on the same facts. There is thus
no cogent reason to frustrate and defeat the present direct action of
the people to exercise their sovereignty by proposing changes to their
fundamental law.
People’s Initiative Should Not
Be Subjected to Conditions
People’s initiative is an option reserved by the people for themselves
exclusively. Neither Congress nor the COMELEC has the power to curtail
or defeat this exclusive power of the people to change the
Constitution. Neither should the exercise of this power be made subject
to any conditions, as some would have us accept.
Oppositors to the people’s initiative point out that this Court ruled in Santiago that
R. A. 6735
was inadequate to cover the system of initiative on amendments to the
Constitution and, thus, no law existed to enable the people to directly
propose changes to the
ConstitutionThis reasoning is seriously objectionable.
The pronouncement on the insufficiency of
R A 6735
was, to my mind, out of place. It was unprecedented and dangerously transgressed the domain reserved to the legislature.
While the legislature is authorized to establish procedures for
determining the validity and sufficiency of a petition to amend the
constitution,[5] that procedure cannot unnecessarily restrict the
initiative privilege.[6] In the same vein, this Court cannot
unnecessarily and unreasonably restrain the people’s right to directly
propose changes to the Constitution by declaring a law inadequate
simply for lack of a sub-heading and other grammatical but
insignificant omissions. Otherwise, the constitutional intent to
empower the people will be severely emasculated, if not rendered
illusory.
People’s Right and Power to Propose Changes to the Constitution Directly Should not be Unreasonably Curtailed chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
If Congress and a constitutional convention, both of which are mere
representative bodies, can propose changes to the Constitution, there
is no reason why the supreme body politic itself – the people – may not
do so directly.
Resort to initiative to amend the constitution or enact a statute is an
exercise of “direct democracy” as opposed to “representative
democracy.” The system of initiative allows citizens to directly
propose constitutional amendments for the general electorate to adopt
or reject at the polls, particularly in a plebiscite. While
representative government was envisioned to “refine and enlarge the
public views, by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of
citizens, whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their
country, and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely
to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations,”[7] the
exercise of “direct democracy” through initiative reserves direct
lawmaking power to the people by providing them a method to make new
laws via the constitution, or alternatively by enacting statutes.[8]
Efforts of the represented to control their representatives through
initiative have been described as curing the problems of democracy with
more democracy.[9]
chan robles virtual law library
The
Constitution
celebrates the sovereign right of the people and declares that
“sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority
emanates from them.”[10] Unless the present petition is granted, this
constitutional principle will be nothing but empty rhetoric, devoid of
substance for those whom it seeks to empower.
The right of the people to pass legislation and to introduce changes to the
Constitution
is a fundamental right and must be jealously guarded.[11] The people
should be allowed to directly seek redress of the problems of society
and representative democracy with the constitutional tools they have
reserved for their use alone.
Accordingly, I vote to GRANT the petition in G.R. No. 174513.
chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
RENATO C. CORONA
Associate Justice
[1] Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616.
[2] 336 Phil. 848 (1997).
[3]
Santos v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 134787, 15 November 2005, 475 SCRA
1.
[4]
Feria and Noche, Civil Procedure Annotated, vol. I, 2001 edition, p.
419.
[5]
Sec. 30, Petitions and initiatives by the people, 16 Am Jur 2d 380,
citing State ex rel. Stenberg v. Beermann, 240 Neb. 754, 485 N.W. 2d
151 (1992).
[6]
Id. citing Coalition for Political Honesty v. State Board of Elections,
83 Ill. 2d 236, 47 Ill. Dec. 363, 415 N.E. 2d 368 (1980).
[7]
Balitzer, Alfred, The Initiative and Referendum: A Study and Evaluation
of Direct Legislation, The California Roundtable 13 (1981). The
American Founding Fathers recognized that direct democracy posed a
profound threat to individual rights and liberty. The U.S. Constitution
was “designed to provide a system of government that would prevent
either a tyranny of the majority or a tyranny of the few.” James
Madison "warned against the power of a majority or a minority of the
population ‘united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or
of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the
permanent and aggregate interest of the community.’chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
[8]
Gilbert Hahn & Steven C. Morton, Initiative and Referendum – Do
They Encourage or Impair Better State Government? 5 FLA. ST. U. L. REV.
925, 927 (1977).
[9]
Florida Advisory Council on Intergovernmental Relations, Initiatives
and Referenda: Issues in Citizen Lawmaking (1986).
[10] Sec. 1, Article II, Constitution.
[11]
In re Initiative Petition No. 362 State Question 669, 899 P.2d 1145
(Okla. 1995).
|
chan robles virtual law library
Back
to Top - Back
to Main Index - Back
to Table of Contents -2006 SC Decisions
- Back
to Home
|